piratesonlinefandomcom-20200214-history
Pirates Online Wiki talk:Adminship request guidelines
Did we discuss this AT ALL? I read that there's supposed to be vote. Did I miss that? Also WHAT is a MAJOR edit? Eliza T. Creststeel 16:42, July 13, 2010 (UTC) I agree, what is defined and who decides what a MAJOR edit is?! (Jzfredskins 17:32, July 13, 2010 (UTC)) Actually I DID discuss this with you... Planning for the site? The Vote thing was an idea which I came up with yesterday only, so I didn't tell you. Definition of Major edit: Not a SIDE EDIT! You can't have some idiot come and do 100 edits of of just spell checking and suddenly get jumped up to admin! The edits should be game changing. Like what I did with all the Lore! Like what Obsidion did with all the Categories! Likke what Barkjon did with the Main Page! 100+ contributions a month for 3 month adminship? Which means just 300 edits? This need to be changed. The lesser the months the more the edits! It's about wanting to be an admin. Suppose a guy wants to be admin (nominated to) for one month of editing. His editing has to: #be a large number #be major Which should not be as high a request as wanting to be an admin after 5 months of editing. Let's discuss this till we get the desired answers. - Lord Midhav 10:48, July 14, 2010 (UTC) I think it would be better if we had a looser set of rules, and having requests more based on individual consideration. An editor's work should be considered by another human being (With authority, of course), not by edit count or other statistical means. I agree with Eliza and Jzfredskins: Even though it's easy to know wether a specific edit is major or not, it cannot be defined accurately enough to be used in a set of rules (again back to Individual consideration). - Obsidion (talk) 00:08, July 19, 2010 (UTC) Welcome back mate, I've been missing your help here! Well isn't that what voting is for? Once the member has been chosen according to the rules everything else can happen on the basis of thoughts of other members of the community. BTW Nicky Linnea got bugged with all the editing over the page, especially with EC bumping her up out of the blue, and all the cry and hue by Kat and Stpehen that followed. She's taken a hiatus from the wiki for some time I think. Actually she was extremely helpful and I'm personally sad that she left... I mean who wouldn't feel bad when they're unrecognized for their hard work.... - Lord Midhav 10:36, July 19, 2010 (UTC) You hardly addressed my post at all, Mid. I said I think we need a looser set of rules, because the rules (That you alone wrote) shut out a lot of people that should be admins. On the time aspect: I was promoted to admin status after a month, but at that time I had already contributed more than the majority of the "older" editors. On the other hand, some editors do not qualify for admin status even though they've been editing for a long time. I've seen several people using their time here as an argument for being promoted - Or complaining about newer editors that get promoted before them. As for edit count: Using this as a measure of an editor's quality is very inaccurate, as I'm sure you know. For these two reasons I think it would be better if the guidelines were more basic, for example 1 month and 200 edits. The only reason I see to have requirements for nomination at all, is to prevent too many ridiculous nominations. The decision should be based on a committee's (Bureaucrats and admins) reviewal of the nominee's work. I really don't like the way you just went ahead and wrote guidelines for this, then opened for nominations without having a proper discussion with me and Eliza. You are taking way too many liberties here. I've put up a notice of shutting down admin nominations until we sort this out. Nicky is a very close friend of mine. She's completely off topic here, but since you posted it, I'll address it. One of the main reasons she had her little hiatus, was people (including yourself) changing her edits, without having a discussion. That is not the way a wiki should work, and as a bureaucrat you should know that. Changing things without debate should only occur when the subject is an indisputable error. Naming weapon groups does NOT go under this category. Obsidion (talk) 02:21, July 21, 2010 (UTC) PS: Out of curiousity - What exactly did you do with the Lore? Silly This talk about admin criteria is just silly. An Admin is someone that can be trusted with a bit more responsiblity to make our wikia the best it can be. Nicky has proven many, many times that she deserves the post of admin. It shouldn't matter if a user has 100 or 500 edits. As long as they have done a good job on the wikia and contributed excellently to the PiratesOnline Wikia, they should be promoted! Sasank5678 (talk) 08:25, July 21, 2010 (UTC) : That's exactly what I'm saying, Sasank. But the discussion is not "silly", because until we get a consensus on the subject, we can't promote any more people. I know for sure that Nicky will make a great admin, but she can't be promoted until we agree on a procedure for promotion. : "As long as they have done a good job on the wikia and contributed excellently to the PiratesOnline Wikia, they should be promoted!" : I think everyone here agrees with that, and the discussion is not about that, but about how we define an editor's contributions as excellent. As I've said before, I disagree with having edit count as a requirement for nomination, but other people don't, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. Instead of condemning it as silly, share your opinion and help us sort it out. I've stated my argument, now I'm waiting for the opposition to present their counterargument. Obsidion (talk) 12:27, July 21, 2010 (UTC) How to define "Excellent Contributions" depends on the judge, not some guidelines. Sasank5678 (talk) 19:11, July 21, 2010 (UTC)